Thommy H:
Yeah, I think simply using Volley too elegant an opportunity to miss. The blunderbusses in my own book fire in multiple ranks, but now there’s an actual rule that represents the effect I’m going for, I’ll probably just use that. The Indy GT blunderbusses just don’t capture what makes the weapon special in my eyes - five guys being able to wipe out a potentially infinite number of foes doesn’t represent the weight of fire from an unusual weapon that gets better en masse: it represents a nuclear arsenal.
Grimstonefire:
If I’m honest I don’t think the volley fire thing is relevant for all missile weapons, there is a reason fluffwise why only bows can have it (afaik), because they fire in an arc (or for the pedants out there, more of an arc than all the other missile weapons in the game).
It may be a simple rules solution, but it is not a decent fluff solution.
Thommy H:
It doesn’t need to be a decent fluff reason - the fact that it’s a rule firearms don’t normally have is what would make it different. Plus all you have to do is throw in a “counts as” and it’s fine.
khedyarl:
Even something as simple as naming the rule:
“Hail of Iron”
Blunderbuss may take advantage of the Volley ranged attack rule.
Thommy H:
Yep, exactly. It doesn’t take much to justify something and if the rule is there then why not use it? Of course, my vision of blunderbusses is not the same as everyone else’s and I have other issues with the Indy GT list that prevent me from using it, so I have no right to offer advice. As always though, “this is how I’d do it…” is the best recommendation I can offer.
Malorn:
str 4
18" range
Volley
Move or Fire
+1 to hit (or make annihilators BS 4)
Remeber the "Ignore cover" rule. It's very blundebussy
While I understand the use of the volley rule, I find it sad if our blunderbusses end up on a hill not moving. I love seeing the shortlegged dwarfs moving around and firing then in range, so my take would be:
str 4 and armour piercing
18" range
Volley (even if the unit moved)
Ignore the -1 to hit penalty for moving and shooting as well as long range
Ignore cover
This would make them draw strenght from their ranks due to amount of hits. They could buzz around and annoy as they should, while being deadly enough to be feared, due to S4 and piercing. Take it or leave it :cheers
elrodogg:
FYI… Kevin put together a preliminary version of the Errata / FAQ
You can find it here: http://warmongers.ziggyqubert.com/wmbb/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=14931
Spikes:
If blunderbusses can hit anyone in the unit they aim at: keep the rules exactly as they are. Move and fire. Must have 5 models min in the front rank, and all front rank models must be able to draw LOS and 12" line to the target unit. +1 STR for every rank of the blunderbuss unit, up to STR 5.
I don’t mind not having any “extras” or “bonuses” for wider frontage. Extra frontage is not really intelligent for shoot-dedicated troops such as annihilators, unless their way of shooting needs more models to see their targets (namely, mostly every other shooting unit in the game). But in their case, it would not benefit the CD player to have more than 5-wide, in the current wording of the rules.
Also, because of the range and the new charge rules: you shoot once, then you get charged. Not that bad for a 200+ pts unit.
khedyarl:
Matt - Does this mean that Annihilators are not being changed at all? {Given that Kevin’s FAQ makes it clear he is pleased with their current format}.
I played two games of fantasy yesterday, and watched two other games, most players had at least one unit of 40 minis, and a few players had 50 to 60 man units, to take advantage of the Horde rule.
Simply put, Blunderbi under their current incarnation are too powerful, in this current paradigm. Kevin appears to be running under the assumption that 8th and 7th are fairly similiar to one-another, when in fact this isn’t true. 8th has heralded massive units, in some cases, more than one per army.
I played one game with the current rules set for Blunderbi {hit the whole hit}, and one game with the 18 inch range, S4, volley rule. {Btw, Matt, you don’t need to add “may not move and shoot” to Blunderbi, really. If you volley, you may not move. So removing that, you would be able to move and shoot two ranks of them, or stand still and fire with the volley rules}.
{Keeping in mind that the second player was fine with me doing some playtesting for CDO}
The results were pretty spectacular. One unit of 16 Blunderbusses {started at 20} remove half of a unit of 52 {started at 60} Dark Elf Warriors, I was able to stick an Eruption Gun between the two units, so they couldn’t charge the Annihilators on their turn, then the next turn, the unit was reduced to 14 models. Two turns of shooting removed 36 models with a 5+ save, and left the Horde unit effectively useless afterward.
In the second game, I used the Volley rules, but made the Annihilators 24 strong, so that I could make them 6x4. They moved for the first few turns, putting out 12 shots per turn, and put a 3 wounds on a Chaos chariot. on the third turn, they planted, and received 18 shots, hitting on 4s {I used the always hit on 4+ rule, as it still makes sense for Blunderbi}, and killed 7 Marauders from a 45 man unit.
Not quite the devastating death-unit that we are used to. Perhaps there is a way to make them level out between the two? Maybe every Annihilator in a unit may make a shot, hitting on 4+?
I think a medium needs to be hit between the two, every model in the unit is far too powerful, whereas the 12 points per model we’re spending for killing 7 marauders isn’t quite what I expect from Blunderbusses.
Thoughts? Maybe Kevin is open to more playtesting? Annihilators are a core tenet to Chaos Dwarfs - they are one of the things, if not THE thing that really defines them. I think doing a really good job with them would definitely help us in the long-run.
Thommy H:
I keep saying this, but there is no way from any perspective - that of background, that of logic or that of game design - that it makes sense for five men with a gun to be able to have a significant chance of simply killing everything in an opposing unit of any size. If sticking a flared end on your gun is that good, why doesn’t everyone do it? Why are regular Dwarfs messing around with handguns when all they have to do is saw off their ends and stick a lampshade on the end to have the equivalent of a brick wall surging across the battlefield towards the enemies’ ranks?
I don’t know. I don’t even use the Indy list, and I’ve never playtested Annihilators, but I feel pretty strongly that the rules are fundamentally wrong. From the moment I read them, I felt they were a very bad idea and horrifically easy to abuse. With units getting larger in 8th Edition, the risk of them being broken is that much higher. Blunderbusses should work differently, yes - that’s what makes them their own weapon, and it’s part of the Chaos Dwarf character - but they should be equivalent, in terms of the damage they can do, to handguns. They’re fundamentally the same thing: a tube that shoots a solid projectile using gunpowder, they just do it in different ways. They should be better in some circumstances and worse in others but, bottom line, they shouldn’t be absolutely, indisputably better than what is essentially the same device.
cornixt:
Agree with Thommy here. While blunderbusses could hit lots of models, it was always limited to the fire zone, an absolute size and dependent on tactical moving. The annihilators take the worst aspect (having a massive unit of them being unlikely to inflict a single wound on a small model) and include the potential for a tiny number able to destroy gigantic units with no limit. They just don’t make sense to me.
mattbird:
I will be seeing Kevin this Thursday, and will beat some sense into him. 
khedyarl:
Heh.
I still feel a between-ground can be struck somewhere between being able to hit an entire unit, completely unrelative to your own units size, and the drastically fewer shots that volley will give you. I’ll think about it tonight, and ask around in the local scene.
Again, Matt, you guys did a fantastic job on DoC.
mattbird:
thanks- all input definitely appreciated.
richard barby:
the idny blunderbusses dont work any better than they did in 7th there are just more targets for them due to there being larger units in the game now. its a knee jeck reaction to im going to lose my big units to your blunderbusses not if you play smart there one of the easiest units to negate
Thommy H:
No, they’re not inherently better, but they work best against large units which are now strongly encouraged by the rules. 8th Edition gives you all kinds of bonuses for going into battle with units of dozens of models and the Annihilators in the Indy GT list punish you for that because of their oddball rules - that means it’s cutting against the grain of the current rules philosophy and amounts to rock, paper, scissors game design: an army that is effective in 8th Edition is significantly less effective against Dwarfs of Chaos. For a book that already has the stigma of being a fanlist, this is not good.
Imagine, for example, someone designing a new army (Fishmen, for the sake of argument) and filling it with magic items that negated Thunderstomp, Heroic Killing Blow and Horde. It would look less like clever design and more like, “I don’t like 8th Edition and I want my army to easily beat anything that panders to its new rules.” Now, Dwarfs of Chaos came first, so this is really just an unfortunate coincidence, but the fact is that the current blunderbuss rules look very much like an antidote to the new metagame, and that reeks of fanboys not wanting to get beaten. Fanlists always struggle with prejudice because the writer is almost always a collector, and they have to work that much harder to convince the community that they’re balanced. The current Annihilators rules are not a good advertisement for Dwarfs of Chaos being a reasonable army list.
wizuriel:
I’m curious how people are finding the master and Servant rule? I’ve been finding it really limits what I can have in my army. In 7th I found the rule good because it forced people not to just spend min core on small cheap hobgoblin units. In 8th though I find after I spend my 25% on warriors and annihilators I don’t have much left to vary my list (especially if you want stuff like hobgoblins).
Uzkul Werit:
Something else that needs addressing is Daemonic Engines and crew. The Hellcannon can fire without crew - is this the same for Death Rockets and Earthshakers?
mattbird:
Yeah, it always was that way. The Hellcannon could fire without crew in 7th, too.
saurus:
I'm curious how people are finding the master and Servant rule? I've been finding it really limits what I can have in my army. In 7th I found the rule good because it forced people not to just spend min core on small cheap hobgoblin units. In 8th though I find after I spend my 25% on warriors and annihilators I don't have much left to vary my list (especially if you want stuff like hobgoblins).
wizuriel
I agree with this point and have been saying this from the beginning. I argue that because you must take 25% minimum core, that the only restriction should be that 'Units of Chaos Dwarf Warriors are 1+', so you must have one unit in the army. This prevents people not taking any dwarfs.
Variety in style of play is what makes the army interesting and forcing people to have 25% of their army based on two units is too limiting.
saurus